Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
NewsFlash!!! Economic Inequality CAUSES Great Depressions!!!
correlation is not causation except when it is:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
It seems like a coincidence that economic inequality spiked in 1928 and 2007, each time right before a great depression doesnt it? Well, it turns out there is causation as well as correlation for some very simple reasons.
Because low marginal rates on extreme wealth creates exponentially increasing wealth which must be invested somewhere, and what is easier - to create jobs and produce something or to give the excess wealth to the speculative banksters who promise easy and fast returns double what you could get from producing something of value?
Since the wealthy are on average just as lazy and stupid as everyone else, they would rather play at dressage at the country club than actually run a business, so of course the speculators get the excess wealth to 'invest' and then what do they do? Speculate! CDS CDO Derivatives derivatives derivatives all the way, baby! Boom! Bust! Depression! Great Depression! It is as predictable as smashing your thumb with a hammer.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/extreme-inequality-helped-cause-both.html
The fact that the Big Lie of ‘tax cuts create jobs’ has been so successfully perpetrated for so long is really a testimony to the conservative ownership of the supposedly liberal media. There are very simple reasons why excessive tax cuts lead to boom-bust great depression cycles instead of job growth – since the excess wealth created by the tax cuts gets funnelled to the easiest investment route – wall street speculators and ponzi schemes, not job creators. The reality is the rich are just as lazy and stupid as everyone else, and real job creation is hard work. The speculation bubble results in bad investments and mounting debt loads which results in the Great Depression to follow the bust. We have repeated this cycle at least 3 times since 1890 and one would think we would have learned by now, but no, the ultra rich and their shameless shills still peddle their snake oil.
Re: the causal mechanism for this phenomenon – what if the wealth increase at the top was largely due to increasing debt burdens on the bottom? i.e. a huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich via debt slavery of the poor? This is pretty evident in the 2007 Great Depression, where the wealth increase was largely fueled by Wall Street pushing debt onto the poor via their insatiable demand for the raw material of their primary product – CDO’s: mortgages, causing the Countrywides to push more and more bad debt onto the poor suckers to give Wall Street more raw material to make more CDO’s to sell to more of the wealthy who had all this excess wealth to invest due to extreme tax cuts, which then becomes a positive feedback loop (aka ‘reflexivity’ in Soros quaint term that he thinks he just discovered). Then when the crash happens, the wealthy get bailed out by the taxpayers, and the poor are left enslaved to the bad debt without even the option of bankruptcy, since the wealthy’s lobbyists have seen to it to remove that option for the slaves.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Extreme Inequality Helped Cause Both the Great Depression and the Current Economic Crisis
It is clear that when banks become too big, it harms the economy. Economist Steve Keen says that "a sustainable level of bank profits appears to be about 1% of GDP", and higher bank profits lead to a Ponzi economy and a depression.
But most mainstream economists dismiss the idea that wealth inequality among individuals causes economic crises.
Of course, some ideologues will argue that even discussing inequality is waging class warfare, and smacks of an attack on capitalism.
However, the father of modern economics - Adam Smith - disagreed.
And as Warren Buffet, one of America's most successful capitalists and defenders of capitalism, points out:
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war ....And as I have previously noted, radical concentration of wealth actually destroys capitalism, turning it instead into socialism for the rich.
Is There a Causal Connection Between Extreme Inequality and Economic Crises?
More to the point, most mainstream economists do not believe there is a causal connection between inequality and severe downturns.
But recent studies by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty are waking up more and more economists to the possibility that there may be a connection.
Specifically, economics professors Saez (UC Berkeley) and Piketty (Paris School of Economics) show that the percentage of wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans peaked in 1928 and 2007 - right before each crash:
Friday, May 25, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Facebook IPO Fleecing: There's a Zucker Born Every Minute!
Rob • 40 minutes ago
Facebook has taught me how shallow and superficial most people really are. I know all of their stupid opinions on everything imaginable, I know every detail of their personal lives. I wish I didn't. Facebook has made me hate a lot of people whom I thought I liked before. Reply . 4users liked this comment
Yahoo! Finance to stream LIVE coverage of the Facebook IPO today starting at 10:45 am. WATCH IT LIVE HERE!
In case you have not heard, Facebook (FB) goes public today and its initial public offering makes it the most valuable company at the time of its offering to ever go public. At $38 a share the company is valued at $104 billion.
While demand to own a stake in the tech giant has been much greater than any would have expected, a new AP-CNBC poll shows that 50 percent of Facebook users believe the social media network may be just a passing fad.
"I don't think it is structured as a fad," says David Kirkpatrick, a technology journalist and author of the preeminent book on Facebook, The Facebook Effect. "I think it is structured as a piece of infrastructure [and] there is nothing that could faddishly come along and replace it any time soon that I can identify."
Facebook currently has 901 million active users worldwide. In March, the site experienced an average of 526 million daily active users. There are 488 million monthly active users who use Facebook on mobile devices.
nonamespecified • Pleasanton, United States
it seems that Facebook has to figure out how to increase their revenue by maybe 100x to justify a 100bill valuation, yet it seems their only avenue for revenue increase will also cause user annoyance increase via advertising and privacy violations.?How are they going to get revenue without annoying users??What benefit are they providing me besides sticking a huge yellow 'kick me' sign on my back??I smell a MySpace and GeoCities enmasse defection to some future nonprofit opensource decentralized peer-peer platform.
Realist • 1 hour 10 minutes ago
This is going to be the biggest bust of all time! When people realize how much trouble it is getting them into, it will become as popular as AOL. Reply . 22users liked this comment
AC • 3 hours ago
Simple answer. It makes me sad. People on their phones constantly. People facebooking their entire day away. Going out to a bar and seeing 90% of the people staring at their smartphones and not enjoying the atmosphere, but rather updating their status and checking twitter. I miss intelligent... More
Tyme • Tucson, Arizona • 2 hours 51 minutes ago
Facebook is being promoted as if this is indispensable for our lives, or should be, and that the world cannot function without Facebook. In a couple years when the love affair is over, the stock tanks, people move on. What then, some other "new shiny toy" will take its place. Reply . 3users liked this comment
Rob • 40 minutes ago
Facebook has taught me how shallow and superficial most people really are. I know all of their stupid opinions on everything imaginable, I know every detail of their personal lives. I wish I didn't. Facebook has made me hate a lot of people whom I thought I liked before. Reply . 4users liked this comment
A Yahoo! User • Seattle, Washington • 3 hours ago
Today is delete your facebook day! Reply . 16users liked this comment
Chris • 4 hours ago
It has changed things... younger folks who were poor at physically present interpersonal skills are now utterly without such skills... no wonder none of them can get a job... they come off as clueless with basic etiquette. Handshake? Limp or none... Introducing people? None at all... Showing up on time? What's time?... Writing a coherent sentence? How many words are in the word "sentence"?
Buck-a-toddy • 3 hours ago
Thanks to Facelessbook, we have the digital equivelent of toilet paper. No longer does one have to anguish alone wondering if they ar the most boring person in the world! There are millions fighting to be recognized as the person with no life! Tell us all about what you ate for lunch. Give us the results of your stool samples. Tell us how you slept! Geesh...
John - HILTON HEAD ISLAND ... • Charlotte, North Carolina • 25 minutes ago
I am not, never was, never will be a Facebook user, Mr. Zuckenberg. I don't have to know everything everyone else is doing, all the time, including my own children and grandchildren. And if the Smart phone vendors had to rely on me, they'd have gone bust a long time ago. Enough said.
Ariel Grimm • 3 hours ago
why is everyone acting like facebook is so new? It's not the first social network and it will not be the last...my prediction is that in the future social networks will be more personalized and tailored to interests and groups. Like how instead of going to the news, more people are checking their... More 1 Reply .
Facebook has taught me how shallow and superficial most people really are. I know all of their stupid opinions on everything imaginable, I know every detail of their personal lives. I wish I didn't. Facebook has made me hate a lot of people whom I thought I liked before. Reply . 4users liked this comment
Yahoo! Finance to stream LIVE coverage of the Facebook IPO today starting at 10:45 am. WATCH IT LIVE HERE!
In case you have not heard, Facebook (FB) goes public today and its initial public offering makes it the most valuable company at the time of its offering to ever go public. At $38 a share the company is valued at $104 billion.
While demand to own a stake in the tech giant has been much greater than any would have expected, a new AP-CNBC poll shows that 50 percent of Facebook users believe the social media network may be just a passing fad.
"I don't think it is structured as a fad," says David Kirkpatrick, a technology journalist and author of the preeminent book on Facebook, The Facebook Effect. "I think it is structured as a piece of infrastructure [and] there is nothing that could faddishly come along and replace it any time soon that I can identify."
Facebook currently has 901 million active users worldwide. In March, the site experienced an average of 526 million daily active users. There are 488 million monthly active users who use Facebook on mobile devices.
nonamespecified • Pleasanton, United States
it seems that Facebook has to figure out how to increase their revenue by maybe 100x to justify a 100bill valuation, yet it seems their only avenue for revenue increase will also cause user annoyance increase via advertising and privacy violations.?How are they going to get revenue without annoying users??What benefit are they providing me besides sticking a huge yellow 'kick me' sign on my back??I smell a MySpace and GeoCities enmasse defection to some future nonprofit opensource decentralized peer-peer platform.
Realist • 1 hour 10 minutes ago
This is going to be the biggest bust of all time! When people realize how much trouble it is getting them into, it will become as popular as AOL. Reply . 22users liked this comment
AC • 3 hours ago
Simple answer. It makes me sad. People on their phones constantly. People facebooking their entire day away. Going out to a bar and seeing 90% of the people staring at their smartphones and not enjoying the atmosphere, but rather updating their status and checking twitter. I miss intelligent... More
Tyme • Tucson, Arizona • 2 hours 51 minutes ago
Facebook is being promoted as if this is indispensable for our lives, or should be, and that the world cannot function without Facebook. In a couple years when the love affair is over, the stock tanks, people move on. What then, some other "new shiny toy" will take its place. Reply . 3users liked this comment
Rob • 40 minutes ago
Facebook has taught me how shallow and superficial most people really are. I know all of their stupid opinions on everything imaginable, I know every detail of their personal lives. I wish I didn't. Facebook has made me hate a lot of people whom I thought I liked before. Reply . 4users liked this comment
A Yahoo! User • Seattle, Washington • 3 hours ago
Today is delete your facebook day! Reply . 16users liked this comment
Chris • 4 hours ago
It has changed things... younger folks who were poor at physically present interpersonal skills are now utterly without such skills... no wonder none of them can get a job... they come off as clueless with basic etiquette. Handshake? Limp or none... Introducing people? None at all... Showing up on time? What's time?... Writing a coherent sentence? How many words are in the word "sentence"?
Buck-a-toddy • 3 hours ago
Thanks to Facelessbook, we have the digital equivelent of toilet paper. No longer does one have to anguish alone wondering if they ar the most boring person in the world! There are millions fighting to be recognized as the person with no life! Tell us all about what you ate for lunch. Give us the results of your stool samples. Tell us how you slept! Geesh...
John - HILTON HEAD ISLAND ... • Charlotte, North Carolina • 25 minutes ago
I am not, never was, never will be a Facebook user, Mr. Zuckenberg. I don't have to know everything everyone else is doing, all the time, including my own children and grandchildren. And if the Smart phone vendors had to rely on me, they'd have gone bust a long time ago. Enough said.
Ariel Grimm • 3 hours ago
why is everyone acting like facebook is so new? It's not the first social network and it will not be the last...my prediction is that in the future social networks will be more personalized and tailored to interests and groups. Like how instead of going to the news, more people are checking their... More 1 Reply .
Friday, May 11, 2012
Mitt Romney - Lord of the Flies - Poster Boy for Sociopathic Authoritarian Personality Disorder
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fitzroya
composer of dreams, vacations and peace .
460 Fans 22 hours ago ( 7:57 PM)
Many of us didn't mistreat our classmates in high school. We never fired people because we could, or tortured an animal because we were too cheap to get a vet or a kennel and too headstrong on sticking to the vacation schedule, even if we were so wealthy we didn't have to work. We never cut a boy's hair because he was a wimp and we could, or gave a gift-wrapped box of human excrement to a homely girl for a present, and laughed when she opened it in the library (one current GOP Congressman did that!)
The trouble with Romney is he was apparently vetted by people who did the same kind of thing, and obviously assume everybody else did too, so that was no concern.
It isn't this one thing, but the sum of all these things that led to a man now asking for a vote and confidence we can't possibly give.
It appears all the years of Romney meanness and thoughtlessness are piling up to be returned with interest through the presidential vote. What goes around comes around.
Mitt Romney - Gay Bashing Bully - Leader of Lord of the Flies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/mitt-romney-bullying-lord-of-the-flies_n_1507757.html
now it all makes sense, the good looking rich kid bully grows up, and wants to bully the whole country now
An anonymous former high-school classmate of Mitt Romney's told ABC News on Thursday that many fellow students have "really negative memories" of the Republican presidential candidate, and that his behavior during those years was "like 'Lord of the Flies.'"
The interview came on the heels of a Washington Post report that detailed Romney's behavior as a student at the Cranbrook School, a prestigious institution in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. In the article's most explosive revelation, multiple classmates of Romney's recall how he led a group of students that forcibly cut the hair of John Lauber, a student who was thought to be gay.
ZWTARocks
.
193 Fans 3 hours ago ( 2:48 PM)
America needs to consider the fact that IT KNEW what it was getting with Bush and it got what it deserved as a result of it...America dodged a bullet when McCain/Palin did not get in the White House...now, we have Mitt Romney...all the signs are there...this is not a good man...and, quite frankly, he has no vision for the country...he has a vision for the 1%...so, be forewarned...what you see is what you get...either we continue with the progress began by the President despite oposition from Republicans, or we choose to elect a Republican who will undo that progress and indeed go back to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place...the choice is clear and simple...Obama 2012...Anybody but a Republican 2012, 2014, 2016...2024.
Frank-ly Speaking
.
638 Fans 20 minutes ago ( 5:02 PM)
Mitt has made tremendous strides since his youthful indiscretions. His modus operandi has evolved from sadistic, homophobic cruelty toward his classmate - through depraved indifference toward Seamus - through predatory business practices at Bain - through his "let Detroit go bankrupt" position on saving the jobs of millions of American workers - through his "let the forclosures continue so the rich can buy the properties for nothing and rent them out" exploitation of struggling homeowners - up to his current callous disregard for the plight of the 99%. If you don't really want to get "punked" by Mitt or subject your fellow citizens to his "hijinks," I think the proper course of action is fairly obvious.
Indy609
.
155 Fans 8 hours ago ( 9:00 AM)
There are enough reasons not to vote for Mitt other than resorting to the "someone said he was a j@rk in high school" hit pieces. Seriously.
democritus 74 Fans 18 hours ago (11:47 PM)
Obama has renewed the police-state assault on medical marijuana, so he has no claim to being morally superior to Mitt. He is bullying people and crushing their freedom for the sake of political power, and this counts more than something Romney did more than forty years ago. The more power you have, the worse it is. I'm sure Romney would be even worse. Just saw Gary Johnson on Beast TV--he's the real deal. He's neither a venture capitalist nor a big celebrity like Obama.
projustice 89 Fans 10 hours ago ( 7:43 AM)
If you were alive in the early 1960s and not in Berkley, you knew that any boy with long hair was likely to receive a "haircut" if he was involved in any athletics or other male oriented activities. It was a different time.
We are a nation that in many ways that is reaping the consequences of our current level in functional intelligence and behavior.
Let's focus on HS pranks, Obama eating a dog or using coke in college, while our nation's economy goes into the tank, Iran develops nuclear weapons, and the US is in a serious and seeming irreversible decline.
Most people don't even understand the ramifications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act but they sure know who Snooky or Justin Bieber is and what they are doing. DUH!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
.
7712 Fans 9 hours ago ( 8:09 AM)
Why do you support a bully for the White House? A bully who has targeted American citizens in the past? Why would this person earn the right to the most powerful office in the world, where you know power corrupts?
samsausagehead
A good day is pissing off a conservative. .
254 Fans 20 hours ago ( 9:13 PM)
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
Captain Cochrane
.
48 Fans 20 hours ago ( 9:34 PM)
But Mitt does not remember any of that. If not, it says a lot about his moral compass and the fact he is able to commit assault without any sort of remorse or genuine regret. Incidents that trouble you and you regret you do not forget. If he had honestly apologized and said he was sorry that would have gone a long way. But he weaseled if, " IF I did that, I am sorry." A non admission apology.
mpasmith
Fiscal and Social Conservative, Theocrat. .
106 Fans
.
22 hours ago ( 7:20 PM)
It's not very often that the memory of one kid in school can evoke memories many years later from a large, collective group of peers.
Sure, this guy's running for President, but when classmates from high school all start coming forward saying "this guy was a real nasty piece of work", and "we all have very bad memories of him", this can speak volumes as to how he was when he was growing up.
Who we are when we are growing up usually plays a large part in who we are as an adult, although most people grow out of their adolesence.
However, it seems that Mr Romney has taken his bullying tactics into the business world, with the way he seems to have treated companies while at Bain Capital, and seems to want to continue his ways in the political arena.
It certainly has been an exceptionally negative campaign so far, it seems that Mitt's old bullying ways have continued through the GOP primaries, which most people have agreed have been the most negative in recent memory.
It really makes you wonder how this guy is going to handle tough diplomatic issues.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ptluzzi59
.
565 Fans 22 hours ago ( 7:40 PM)
"It really makes you wonder how this guy is going to handle tough diplomatic issues"
he will never get the chance pres. Obama is going to beat him badly!!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
wakeup804
Choose peace and tolerance .
908 Fans 22 hours ago ( 7:41 PM)
Exactly. The fact that many said the incident bothered them well into their adult years speaks volumes. Today he gets his rocks off destroying everyday people.
now it all makes sense, the good looking rich kid bully grows up, and wants to bully the whole country now
An anonymous former high-school classmate of Mitt Romney's told ABC News on Thursday that many fellow students have "really negative memories" of the Republican presidential candidate, and that his behavior during those years was "like 'Lord of the Flies.'"
The interview came on the heels of a Washington Post report that detailed Romney's behavior as a student at the Cranbrook School, a prestigious institution in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. In the article's most explosive revelation, multiple classmates of Romney's recall how he led a group of students that forcibly cut the hair of John Lauber, a student who was thought to be gay.
ZWTARocks
.
193 Fans 3 hours ago ( 2:48 PM)
America needs to consider the fact that IT KNEW what it was getting with Bush and it got what it deserved as a result of it...America dodged a bullet when McCain/Palin did not get in the White House...now, we have Mitt Romney...all the signs are there...this is not a good man...and, quite frankly, he has no vision for the country...he has a vision for the 1%...so, be forewarned...what you see is what you get...either we continue with the progress began by the President despite oposition from Republicans, or we choose to elect a Republican who will undo that progress and indeed go back to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place...the choice is clear and simple...Obama 2012...Anybody but a Republican 2012, 2014, 2016...2024.
Frank-ly Speaking
.
638 Fans 20 minutes ago ( 5:02 PM)
Mitt has made tremendous strides since his youthful indiscretions. His modus operandi has evolved from sadistic, homophobic cruelty toward his classmate - through depraved indifference toward Seamus - through predatory business practices at Bain - through his "let Detroit go bankrupt" position on saving the jobs of millions of American workers - through his "let the forclosures continue so the rich can buy the properties for nothing and rent them out" exploitation of struggling homeowners - up to his current callous disregard for the plight of the 99%. If you don't really want to get "punked" by Mitt or subject your fellow citizens to his "hijinks," I think the proper course of action is fairly obvious.
Indy609
.
155 Fans 8 hours ago ( 9:00 AM)
There are enough reasons not to vote for Mitt other than resorting to the "someone said he was a j@rk in high school" hit pieces. Seriously.
democritus 74 Fans 18 hours ago (11:47 PM)
Obama has renewed the police-state assault on medical marijuana, so he has no claim to being morally superior to Mitt. He is bullying people and crushing their freedom for the sake of political power, and this counts more than something Romney did more than forty years ago. The more power you have, the worse it is. I'm sure Romney would be even worse. Just saw Gary Johnson on Beast TV--he's the real deal. He's neither a venture capitalist nor a big celebrity like Obama.
projustice 89 Fans 10 hours ago ( 7:43 AM)
If you were alive in the early 1960s and not in Berkley, you knew that any boy with long hair was likely to receive a "haircut" if he was involved in any athletics or other male oriented activities. It was a different time.
We are a nation that in many ways that is reaping the consequences of our current level in functional intelligence and behavior.
Let's focus on HS pranks, Obama eating a dog or using coke in college, while our nation's economy goes into the tank, Iran develops nuclear weapons, and the US is in a serious and seeming irreversible decline.
Most people don't even understand the ramifications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act but they sure know who Snooky or Justin Bieber is and what they are doing. DUH!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rich misty
.
7712 Fans 9 hours ago ( 8:09 AM)
Why do you support a bully for the White House? A bully who has targeted American citizens in the past? Why would this person earn the right to the most powerful office in the world, where you know power corrupts?
samsausagehead
A good day is pissing off a conservative. .
254 Fans 20 hours ago ( 9:13 PM)
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
Captain Cochrane
.
48 Fans 20 hours ago ( 9:34 PM)
But Mitt does not remember any of that. If not, it says a lot about his moral compass and the fact he is able to commit assault without any sort of remorse or genuine regret. Incidents that trouble you and you regret you do not forget. If he had honestly apologized and said he was sorry that would have gone a long way. But he weaseled if, " IF I did that, I am sorry." A non admission apology.
mpasmith
Fiscal and Social Conservative, Theocrat. .
106 Fans
.
22 hours ago ( 7:20 PM)
It's not very often that the memory of one kid in school can evoke memories many years later from a large, collective group of peers.
Sure, this guy's running for President, but when classmates from high school all start coming forward saying "this guy was a real nasty piece of work", and "we all have very bad memories of him", this can speak volumes as to how he was when he was growing up.
Who we are when we are growing up usually plays a large part in who we are as an adult, although most people grow out of their adolesence.
However, it seems that Mr Romney has taken his bullying tactics into the business world, with the way he seems to have treated companies while at Bain Capital, and seems to want to continue his ways in the political arena.
It certainly has been an exceptionally negative campaign so far, it seems that Mitt's old bullying ways have continued through the GOP primaries, which most people have agreed have been the most negative in recent memory.
It really makes you wonder how this guy is going to handle tough diplomatic issues.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ptluzzi59
.
565 Fans 22 hours ago ( 7:40 PM)
"It really makes you wonder how this guy is going to handle tough diplomatic issues"
he will never get the chance pres. Obama is going to beat him badly!!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
wakeup804
Choose peace and tolerance .
908 Fans 22 hours ago ( 7:41 PM)
Exactly. The fact that many said the incident bothered them well into their adult years speaks volumes. Today he gets his rocks off destroying everyday people.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
NewsFlash - Bloomberg Reports on Republican Record of Decades Long Economic Incompetence
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House
By Bob Drummond
Bloomberg – 16 hours ago
............
During an election-year clash over which U.S. political party has the best prescription for curing unemployment, Democrats can argue that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with them in the White House.
The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.
Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.
The debate over jobs intensified last week, when the Labor Department reported that U.S. employers added a total of 115,000 private and government jobs in April, fewer than forecast and the smallest number in six months.
Private payrolls grew by 130,000 and, for the first time under President Barack Obama, surpassed the total in January 2009, when he took office. Total employment stayed below January 2009 because there are 607,000 fewer federal, state and local government employees, the Labor Department reported May 4.
April's unemployment rate fell one percentage point to 8.1 percent as more workers left the labor force.
Romney Attacks
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, campaigning on his business experience and the promise of low taxes and lighter government regulation, said the "terrible and very disappointing" jobs report was evidence that Obama's economic policies aren't working.
"This is way, way, way off from what should happen in a normal recovery," Romney said in a Fox News Channel interview.
Obama focused his remarks on the improvement at non- government employers. "Our businesses have now created more than 4.2 million new jobs over the last 26 months -- more than 1 million jobs in the last six months alone," Obama said at a May 4 event in Virginia.
Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama's inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month.
On a monthly basis, Democrat Bill Clinton averaged 217,000 new private-sector jobs. Democrat Jimmy Carter had an average of 188,000, followed by Republican Ronald Reagan's 153,000, according to Labor Department data.
Clinton's Tenure
Clinton's eight-year tenure accounted for half of the Democrats' total private employment gains over the past five decades. More than 60 percent of the Republicans' increase came during Reagan's two terms in office.
Republicans, campaigning on pledges to cut government spending and programs, had a relatively better record at creating public-sector jobs. Since January 1961, federal, state and local government employment grew by 7.1 million under Republican presidents and 6.3 million when Democrats were in the White House. Government agencies added an average of 21,000 jobs per month under Republicans, compared with 22,000 for Democrats.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Drummond in Washington at bdrummond@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net
Bloomberg.... All Comments..
Top LocationsAtlanta De Witt Minneapolis Bloomingdale Mt Hamilton New York Tampa Castro Valley St Louis Culpeper 188 comments Popular Now Newest
Oldest Most Replied ezliving11 • 21 seconds ago Typical to see Yahoo is off to another extreme liberal stance on the national campaign.. . • 1 minute 35 seconds ago Magron .. Clinton benefited from the Tech Bubble and there were tons of jobs created, a huge stock market run up, and jobs created in the tech sector everywhere.. In 2000, the Tech Bubble burst and the country went into a mild recession.. Clinton got credit for the jobs? JFK benefited from the Cold War run-up, and the space race.. He should get credit for that, but he also put us in Vietnam.. Obama is benefiting from inventory regeneration. BLS stats do not show significant job growth. The numbers are showing job replenishment. If there was actual job growth, you would see growth in BLS numbers.. Unfortunately, your public school education cheated you again... Now, please do your jolly dance and make the usual disparaging remark and show everyone what a child you are ... hurry up, I have stuff to do..... Alfred Newman • 1 minute 49 seconds ago " If I had a Sock Monkey, He'd look just like Obama ". D l • 1 minute 54 seconds ago Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure, as the saying goes...Are these reporters inept or just really biased. There is so much more to jobs creation and what causes it than just who is in office when something takes place. For example, Reagan took over the country when we had incredibly bad inflation, and high interest rates. He worked with a Democratic Congress and the trend was positive economic growth. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1954 until 1994. During the late nineties when Bill Clinton was President, we were entering a boom period in the economy and had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In 2000, we were entering an economic slowdown and were in a recession by the time George Bush took office. Check the records if you don't believe it. Then we had 9/11. In general, the trend was upward until late 2007/early 2008. At that time, Both Houses of Congress were Democratically held. Since then, until just last year, Democrats held the White House, The Senate, and the House--only losing the House in the last election. The trend has been downward. You can say that Obama took over an economy in troubel, but so did both Reagan and Bush. My point is that the article over simplifies jobs creation to try to make Democrarts look favorable and ignores that an economy is like a huge ocean liner. What is done to affect it can take a number of years to see the results and the subsequent person in office often gets the credit or the blame. It is smarter to simply look at what is done and what the ultimate impact is. The trend is more indicative of performance than the total numbers because you see the trend before complete result.. D l • 1 minute 56 seconds ago Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure, as the saying goes...Are these reporters inept or just really biased. There is so much more to jobs creation and what causes it than just who is in office when something takes place. For example, Reagan took over the country when we had incredibly bad inflation, and high interest rates. He worked with a Democratic Congress and the trend was positive economic growth. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1954 until 1994. During the late nineties when Bill Clinton was President, we were entering a boom period in the economy and had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In 2000, we were entering an economic slowdown and were in a recession by the time George Bush took office. Check the records if you don't believe it. Then we had 9/11. In general, the trend was upward until late 2007/early 2008. At that time, Both Houses of Congress were Democratically held. Since then, until just last year, Democrats held the White House, The Senate, and the House--only losing the House in the last election. The trend has been downward. You can say that Obama took over an economy in troubel, but so did both Reagan and Bush. My point is that the article over simplifies jobs creation to try to make Democrarts look favorable and ignores that an economy is like a huge ocean liner. What is done to affect it can take a number of years to see the results and the subsequent person in office often gets the credit or the blame. It is smarter to simply look at what is done and what the ultimate impact is. The trend is more indicative of performance than the total numbers because you see the trend before complete result.. PL • 2 minutes 4 seconds ago Republicans aren't about jobs..there about greed.. bt1911 • 2 minutes 9 seconds ago I remember how I wrote when I had my first beer, too... Gregory A • New York, New York • 2 minutes 16 seconds ago Notwithstanding Obama blaming Bush for handing off a poor economic outlook, it's typical that Republican Presidents got stuck cleaning up the disasters or the falling economies left by Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. then these kool-aid writers like Drummond, knowing nothing but stats and averages, get to tell us this means the Dems are better job creators when the Dems had nothing to do with the job creation. the Dems, by and large, benefited starting with healthy economies.. Dallylawnman • Tucker, Georgia • 4 minutes 42 seconds ago BGOV do the numbers for the real democratic turkeys! Obama and Jimmi.Johnson and Kennedy had a war going Clinton had a good economy handed to him. So what is your point,. alan • Sunnyvale, California • 5 minutes ago democrats destroy working americans with taxes, welfare, job destrying unions and overpaid goverment employees. BryanM • Wallingford, Connecticut • 5 minutes ago Reminds me of the lady who says she always wins at the casino. Then her husband says, "ask her how much she lost".. timby • 5 minutes ago Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Private Sector Jobs Seasonally Adjusted
Jan 2000 Start of Bush's Term: 110210K
Dec 2008 End of Bush's Term: 111824K
Results: +1.614 million jobs than when Bush took office.
NOTE: These are just Private Sector & don't reflect any of jobs created.
Jan 2009 Start of Obama's Term: 110985K
Feb 2012 Obama's Term ( 4 years): 110724K
Results: MINUS JOBS. Ralph • San Diego, California • 6 minutes ago Labor statistics can be used to say about anything you want to say.
Methodology in collecting and analyzing data has undergone many changes in 50 years. Choice of the right base year will make remarkable differences. The first term of a Republican president compared to the first term of a Demo is historically better. The second term of a Republican compared to a Demo administration shows positive but less growth. Is it not more appropriate to look at the behavior of the individual president (Republican or Democrat)? What policies does he argue for and what does he initiate that promotes growth short and long term. Marshall • 6 minutes ago Yes Republicans, time to rage as usual.. C • 7 minutes ago Government does not create jobs. Democrats and Republicans are the same. They both hurt private job creation. The only thing the government can do is to set the rules of the game and get out of the way. Subsidies, tariffs, regulations, restrictions, lobbying, special interest, tax rewards, loopholes, government spending, deficit spending, defense spending, government grants, it ALL HURTS BUSINESS.. ak7666 • Louisville, Kentucky • 8 minutes ago The Rich do not create jobs.
They are a product of the real job creators.
Is the working person that creates jobs and wealth.
By their labor, working people make stuff that is sold to other working people.
The rich do nothing.
Their money is worthless without the working person.. Save our country • Austin, Texas • 8 minutes ago Ah yes, the spin master Drummund and Bloomberg! How can anybody in their right mind bring up Carter as a good example?. Ed • Cleveland, Ohio • 9 minutes ago Take out the two tax cutters and run the numbers again, i.e., Clinton and Kennedy. The were the two Democrats that adopted pro-growth policies, the former because he had to win re-election, and the latter because it was a good way to bolster the public treasury. Obama is too Marxist to even travel down that road.. BUDMAN • Durham, North Carolina • 9 minutes ago May have came while the Dems were in office but not because they were in office. Remember all the shovel ready jobs well we got nada. Lloyd R • Pompano Beach, Florida • 10 minutes ago Remember Clinton was in office during the Internet Explosion. He also got out as it tanked. Look at all the Super bowl ads during the 90's.There all gone by the time he left office. Just in time to give it to Bush... More Post a comment ...Top Stories ».
...Wall Street Tumbles on Euro Zone Uncertainty
Reuters
Stocks tumbled to the lowest level in two months on Tuesday as new questions emerged over Europe's ability to fend …
...Facebook Roadshow: A Show IndeedDaniel Gross...GOP Blocks Senate Debate on Student Loan BillAP...Financial Face-Off: Warren Buffett Vs. Gold and SilverMinyanville...With Green Mountain, One Analyst Had it RightReuters.........Recent QuotesPortfolios
Recent Quotes Symbol Price Change % Chg
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
Search for share prices .Save List to Portfolio »
Loading portfolios.......Trading Center.....Trade Free for 60 Days + Get up to $600 cash.
....Trade Free for 60 Days Plus Get up to $500
.
By Bob Drummond
Bloomberg – 16 hours ago
............
During an election-year clash over which U.S. political party has the best prescription for curing unemployment, Democrats can argue that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with them in the White House.
The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.
Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.
The debate over jobs intensified last week, when the Labor Department reported that U.S. employers added a total of 115,000 private and government jobs in April, fewer than forecast and the smallest number in six months.
Private payrolls grew by 130,000 and, for the first time under President Barack Obama, surpassed the total in January 2009, when he took office. Total employment stayed below January 2009 because there are 607,000 fewer federal, state and local government employees, the Labor Department reported May 4.
April's unemployment rate fell one percentage point to 8.1 percent as more workers left the labor force.
Romney Attacks
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, campaigning on his business experience and the promise of low taxes and lighter government regulation, said the "terrible and very disappointing" jobs report was evidence that Obama's economic policies aren't working.
"This is way, way, way off from what should happen in a normal recovery," Romney said in a Fox News Channel interview.
Obama focused his remarks on the improvement at non- government employers. "Our businesses have now created more than 4.2 million new jobs over the last 26 months -- more than 1 million jobs in the last six months alone," Obama said at a May 4 event in Virginia.
Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama's inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month.
On a monthly basis, Democrat Bill Clinton averaged 217,000 new private-sector jobs. Democrat Jimmy Carter had an average of 188,000, followed by Republican Ronald Reagan's 153,000, according to Labor Department data.
Clinton's Tenure
Clinton's eight-year tenure accounted for half of the Democrats' total private employment gains over the past five decades. More than 60 percent of the Republicans' increase came during Reagan's two terms in office.
Republicans, campaigning on pledges to cut government spending and programs, had a relatively better record at creating public-sector jobs. Since January 1961, federal, state and local government employment grew by 7.1 million under Republican presidents and 6.3 million when Democrats were in the White House. Government agencies added an average of 21,000 jobs per month under Republicans, compared with 22,000 for Democrats.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Drummond in Washington at bdrummond@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net
Bloomberg.... All Comments..
Top LocationsAtlanta De Witt Minneapolis Bloomingdale Mt Hamilton New York Tampa Castro Valley St Louis Culpeper 188 comments Popular Now Newest
Oldest Most Replied ezliving11 • 21 seconds ago Typical to see Yahoo is off to another extreme liberal stance on the national campaign.. . • 1 minute 35 seconds ago Magron .. Clinton benefited from the Tech Bubble and there were tons of jobs created, a huge stock market run up, and jobs created in the tech sector everywhere.. In 2000, the Tech Bubble burst and the country went into a mild recession.. Clinton got credit for the jobs? JFK benefited from the Cold War run-up, and the space race.. He should get credit for that, but he also put us in Vietnam.. Obama is benefiting from inventory regeneration. BLS stats do not show significant job growth. The numbers are showing job replenishment. If there was actual job growth, you would see growth in BLS numbers.. Unfortunately, your public school education cheated you again... Now, please do your jolly dance and make the usual disparaging remark and show everyone what a child you are ... hurry up, I have stuff to do..... Alfred Newman • 1 minute 49 seconds ago " If I had a Sock Monkey, He'd look just like Obama ". D l • 1 minute 54 seconds ago Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure, as the saying goes...Are these reporters inept or just really biased. There is so much more to jobs creation and what causes it than just who is in office when something takes place. For example, Reagan took over the country when we had incredibly bad inflation, and high interest rates. He worked with a Democratic Congress and the trend was positive economic growth. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1954 until 1994. During the late nineties when Bill Clinton was President, we were entering a boom period in the economy and had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In 2000, we were entering an economic slowdown and were in a recession by the time George Bush took office. Check the records if you don't believe it. Then we had 9/11. In general, the trend was upward until late 2007/early 2008. At that time, Both Houses of Congress were Democratically held. Since then, until just last year, Democrats held the White House, The Senate, and the House--only losing the House in the last election. The trend has been downward. You can say that Obama took over an economy in troubel, but so did both Reagan and Bush. My point is that the article over simplifies jobs creation to try to make Democrarts look favorable and ignores that an economy is like a huge ocean liner. What is done to affect it can take a number of years to see the results and the subsequent person in office often gets the credit or the blame. It is smarter to simply look at what is done and what the ultimate impact is. The trend is more indicative of performance than the total numbers because you see the trend before complete result.. D l • 1 minute 56 seconds ago Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure, as the saying goes...Are these reporters inept or just really biased. There is so much more to jobs creation and what causes it than just who is in office when something takes place. For example, Reagan took over the country when we had incredibly bad inflation, and high interest rates. He worked with a Democratic Congress and the trend was positive economic growth. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1954 until 1994. During the late nineties when Bill Clinton was President, we were entering a boom period in the economy and had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In 2000, we were entering an economic slowdown and were in a recession by the time George Bush took office. Check the records if you don't believe it. Then we had 9/11. In general, the trend was upward until late 2007/early 2008. At that time, Both Houses of Congress were Democratically held. Since then, until just last year, Democrats held the White House, The Senate, and the House--only losing the House in the last election. The trend has been downward. You can say that Obama took over an economy in troubel, but so did both Reagan and Bush. My point is that the article over simplifies jobs creation to try to make Democrarts look favorable and ignores that an economy is like a huge ocean liner. What is done to affect it can take a number of years to see the results and the subsequent person in office often gets the credit or the blame. It is smarter to simply look at what is done and what the ultimate impact is. The trend is more indicative of performance than the total numbers because you see the trend before complete result.. PL • 2 minutes 4 seconds ago Republicans aren't about jobs..there about greed.. bt1911 • 2 minutes 9 seconds ago I remember how I wrote when I had my first beer, too... Gregory A • New York, New York • 2 minutes 16 seconds ago Notwithstanding Obama blaming Bush for handing off a poor economic outlook, it's typical that Republican Presidents got stuck cleaning up the disasters or the falling economies left by Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. then these kool-aid writers like Drummond, knowing nothing but stats and averages, get to tell us this means the Dems are better job creators when the Dems had nothing to do with the job creation. the Dems, by and large, benefited starting with healthy economies.. Dallylawnman • Tucker, Georgia • 4 minutes 42 seconds ago BGOV do the numbers for the real democratic turkeys! Obama and Jimmi.Johnson and Kennedy had a war going Clinton had a good economy handed to him. So what is your point,. alan • Sunnyvale, California • 5 minutes ago democrats destroy working americans with taxes, welfare, job destrying unions and overpaid goverment employees. BryanM • Wallingford, Connecticut • 5 minutes ago Reminds me of the lady who says she always wins at the casino. Then her husband says, "ask her how much she lost".. timby • 5 minutes ago Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Private Sector Jobs Seasonally Adjusted
Jan 2000 Start of Bush's Term: 110210K
Dec 2008 End of Bush's Term: 111824K
Results: +1.614 million jobs than when Bush took office.
NOTE: These are just Private Sector & don't reflect any of jobs created.
Jan 2009 Start of Obama's Term: 110985K
Feb 2012 Obama's Term ( 4 years): 110724K
Results: MINUS JOBS. Ralph • San Diego, California • 6 minutes ago Labor statistics can be used to say about anything you want to say.
Methodology in collecting and analyzing data has undergone many changes in 50 years. Choice of the right base year will make remarkable differences. The first term of a Republican president compared to the first term of a Demo is historically better. The second term of a Republican compared to a Demo administration shows positive but less growth. Is it not more appropriate to look at the behavior of the individual president (Republican or Democrat)? What policies does he argue for and what does he initiate that promotes growth short and long term. Marshall • 6 minutes ago Yes Republicans, time to rage as usual.. C • 7 minutes ago Government does not create jobs. Democrats and Republicans are the same. They both hurt private job creation. The only thing the government can do is to set the rules of the game and get out of the way. Subsidies, tariffs, regulations, restrictions, lobbying, special interest, tax rewards, loopholes, government spending, deficit spending, defense spending, government grants, it ALL HURTS BUSINESS.. ak7666 • Louisville, Kentucky • 8 minutes ago The Rich do not create jobs.
They are a product of the real job creators.
Is the working person that creates jobs and wealth.
By their labor, working people make stuff that is sold to other working people.
The rich do nothing.
Their money is worthless without the working person.. Save our country • Austin, Texas • 8 minutes ago Ah yes, the spin master Drummund and Bloomberg! How can anybody in their right mind bring up Carter as a good example?. Ed • Cleveland, Ohio • 9 minutes ago Take out the two tax cutters and run the numbers again, i.e., Clinton and Kennedy. The were the two Democrats that adopted pro-growth policies, the former because he had to win re-election, and the latter because it was a good way to bolster the public treasury. Obama is too Marxist to even travel down that road.. BUDMAN • Durham, North Carolina • 9 minutes ago May have came while the Dems were in office but not because they were in office. Remember all the shovel ready jobs well we got nada. Lloyd R • Pompano Beach, Florida • 10 minutes ago Remember Clinton was in office during the Internet Explosion. He also got out as it tanked. Look at all the Super bowl ads during the 90's.There all gone by the time he left office. Just in time to give it to Bush... More Post a comment ...Top Stories ».
...Wall Street Tumbles on Euro Zone Uncertainty
Reuters
Stocks tumbled to the lowest level in two months on Tuesday as new questions emerged over Europe's ability to fend …
...Facebook Roadshow: A Show IndeedDaniel Gross...GOP Blocks Senate Debate on Student Loan BillAP...Financial Face-Off: Warren Buffett Vs. Gold and SilverMinyanville...With Green Mountain, One Analyst Had it RightReuters.........Recent QuotesPortfolios
Recent Quotes Symbol Price Change % Chg
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
Search for share prices .Save List to Portfolio »
Loading portfolios.......Trading Center.....Trade Free for 60 Days + Get up to $600 cash.
....Trade Free for 60 Days Plus Get up to $500
.
Elizabeth Holtzman Gives George W Bush Something to Think About
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13222/Cheating+Justice+How+Bush+and+Cheney+Attacked+The+Rule+of+Law+and+Plotted+to+Avoid+Prosecution+And+What+We+Can+Do+About+It.aspx
Pinochet and Bush the Destroyer - may the long arm of justice finally bring him to account
Pinochet and Bush the Destroyer - may the long arm of justice finally bring him to account
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)